Informatics 263
Computerization, Work and Organizations
Winter 2011
General Information
Instructor:
Melissa Mazmanian
mmazmani@uci.edu
949-824-9284
5074 Donald Bren Hall
Office Hours:
By appointment
Class Time & Location
Wednesday: 2:00 – 4:50
ICS 243
Readings:
All readings available online. Inoformation will be provided on the first day of
class.
Grading:
Participation
20%
Session facilitation
30%
Commentaries (5 pts each)
30%
Final paper
20%
263: COURSE OVERVIEW
This course is intended to generate understanding of the philosophical, theoretical, and
empirical foundations of the social study of technology in organizations. The course
involves consideration and discussion of the research literature that includes a range of
social phenomena surrounding the development, implementation, use, and implications
of technology in organizations. A particular focus of the discussions will be an
examination of the research assumptions guiding the theoretical ideas and empirical
studies conducted in this field. The readings in this course follow a trajectory from
readings that will help us understand research assumptions’ underlying studies in
technology and organizations, to a variety of theoretical frameworks applied to studies
of technology in organizations and empirical examples of research conducted from the
perspective of different research methods/assumptions and theoretical perspectives.
This course would be useful for graduate students doing sociological and
anthropological work in organizations. Even if one’s research focus does not directly
focus on technology more and more core organizational processes and routines happen
via information technologies. Therefore, developing frameworks to understand the
relationship between technological infrastructure and assumptions and organizational
processes is important for scholars across disciplinary traditions.1
Structure
This is a seminar not a lecture course. It is based entirely on active class interaction. This
course is not designed to provide a flood of information. Rather, readings have been
selectively chosen to stimulate rich discussion. Students are expected to take the time to
read thoroughly and with a critical perspective. Everyone is expected to come to class
fully prepared to discuss all readings. In spirit of engendering a dynamic environment
students are encouraged to contribute relevant news stories and Internet examples to
discussion. Personal reflection and narrative is also encouraged. Class participation
grades will be allocated on the basis of both the quality and quantity of contribution.
Assignments
There are three assignments for this course: Session facilitation, commentaries on
readings, and a final reflection paper. Each is explained in full below. Grades will be
determined as a culmination of each assignment plus active class participation. A
weighted breakdown is provided on the first page of the syllabus.
(a) Session facilitation
Students are required to lead and facilitate one class session. Approximately 2
students will be assigned to lead each class session (after the first class). This
involves activity before, during, and after the class session.

Before the class session, please become familiar with all the readings for that
1
This course is a modified version of a course taught by Wanda Orlikowski at MIT Sloan School of Management,
15.576: Research Seminar in Information Technology and Organizations: Social Perspectives. I thank Wanda
for her excellent course and permission to modify her existing syllabus.
263: Comp, Work, Orgs
2
Winter, 2011
class and generate key themes and questions for class discussion. I expect
students meet with me a few days before the class session to discuss the
design of the session and the particular ideas and issues you would like to
highlight.


During the class session the student will provide a 15-20 minute overview of
the important themes and issues raised by the readings, ending with 3
specific questions to discuss. The student is then expected to facilitate a
discussion for the remainder of the session. Facilitation includes guiding
discussion, eliciting questions, and providing closing summary remarks in
the last 5-10 minutes of class.
After the class session, you will prepare a short written summary of the
themes and issues discussed, and distribute this to the rest of the class at the
next session.
Grades for facilitating a session depend on level of preparation, framing of overview
and closing remarks, written summary, and quality of discussion facilitated.
(b) Commentaries
Students will prepare six (out of a possible nine) commentaries on class readings.
These papers are due at the beginning of class and intended to invoke thoughtful
consideration of the materials read (approx 2 pages, 1.5 space). Students are
encouraged to explore how themes from a previous week are explored in the current
readings, explore how the theoretical perspective has concrete implications in a
specific real world scenario, and reflect on how the readings inform their research
interests and endeavors. Insight into how the theoretical perspectives presented in
the readings might inform how the student understands and interprets data from
their individual research, or imagines his or herself conducting research is also
encouraged. A summary of the reading, or simple compare and contrast between
readings, is not acceptable. Papers will be graded based on evidence of deep
reflection and application of the readings.
(d) Reflection paper (final)
An individual final reflection paper is to be submitted one week after the end of the
course (6-8 pages, 1.5 space; due March 16). This paper provides an opportunity for
students to reflect on course materials and applications. Students can choose one of
three options for their final paper:
1. Write and extended memo applying one or more of the theoretical
perspectives discussed in class toward concrete organizational research that
the student is currently engaged in.
2. Write a first person reflection paper on the methods and ontological
assumptions discussed in class and develop an individual research profile
that discusses your ideas about research and how the course content has
263: Comp, Work, Orgs
3
Winter, 2011
influenced your ideas about the process, content, and ontological
assumptions undergirding research on technology and organizations
3. This option is for Masters students only. I will come up with an alternate
final paper assignment for those not interested in research.
The paper will be graded based on evidence of thoughtfulness, personal reflection,
and integration of course materials with individual perspectives.
263: Comp, Work, Orgs
4
Winter, 2011
263: COURSE SCHEDULE
1/5
Introduction to course &
Research Assumptions in Studying Organizational Phenomena
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, London:
Heinemann, 1979: Chapters 1-3: pp. 1-37.
Van Maanen, J. “Style as Theory,” Organization Science, 6, 1: 1995: 132-143.
1/12
Research Assumptions in Studying Technology
Markus, M.L. and Robey, D. “Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal
Structure in Theory and Research,” Management Science, 34, 5, 1988: 583-598.
Winner, L. “Do Artefacts have Politics?” in The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age
of High Technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986: 19-39.
Kling, R. “Computerization and Social Transformations,” Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16,
3, 1991: 342-367.
Orlikowski, W.J. and Iacono, C.S. “Desperately Seeking the ‘IT’ in IT Research: A Call to
Theorizing the IT Artifact,” Information Systems Research, 12, 2, 2001: 121-134.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
1/19
Critical/Power Perspectives on Technology
Gasser, L. “The Integration of Computing and Routine Work,” ACM Transactions on Office
Information Systems, 4, 3, 1986: 205-225.
Zuboff, S. “Automate/Informate: The Two Faces of Intelligent Technology.” Organizational
Dynamics, 14, 2, 1985: 5-18.
Barley, S.R. “Technology, Power, and The Social Organization of Work,” Research in the Sociology
of Organizations, 6, 1988: 33-80.
Hoskin, K.W., Macve, R. H. “Accounting an the Examination: A Genealogy of Disciplinary
Power.” Accounting, Organizations and Society, 11, 2, 1986 105-136
1/26
Constructivist Perspectives on Technology
Pinch, T.J. and Bijker, W.E. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the
Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other,” Social Studies of
Science, 14, 3, 1984: 399-441.
Woolgar, S. and Grint, K. “Computers and the Transformation of Social Analysis,” Science,
Technology, & Human Values, 16, 3, 1991: 368-381.
263: Comp, Work, Orgs
5
Winter, 2011
Garud, R. and Rappa, M.A. “A Socio-Cognitive Model of Technology Evolution: The Case of
Cochlear Implants,” Organization Science, 5, 3, 1994: 344-362.
Hans K. Klein, H.K. and Kleinman, D.L. “The Social Construction of Technology: Structural
Considerations,” Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27, 1, 2002: 28-52.
2/2
Structurational Perspectives on Technology
Barley, S. “Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observation of CT Scanners
and the Social Order of Radiology Departments,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 1986: 78108.
Orlikowski, W.J. “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in
Organizations,” Organization Science, 3, 3, 1992: 398-427.
DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M.S. “Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use:
Adaptive Structuration Theory,” Organization Science, 5, 2, 1994: 121-147.
Orlikowski, W.J. ““Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying
Technology in Organizations,” Organization Science, 11, 4, 2000: 404–428.
2/9
Post-Humanist Perspectives on Technology
Kaghan, W.N. and Bowker, G.C. “Out of Machine Age?: Complexity, Sociotechnical Systems and
Actor Network Theory,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18, 3, 2001: 253-269.
15.576 5 Fall 2008
Latour, B. “Technology is society made durable,” in A Sociology of monsters: Essays on Power,
Technology and Domination, Ed, J. Law, 1993: 103-131.
Pickering, A. “The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Emergence in the Sociology of Science,”
American Journal of Sociology, 99, 3, 1993: 559-589.
Walsham, G. and Sahay, S. “GIS for District-Level Administration in India: Problems and
Opportunities,”MIS Quarterly, 23, 1, 1999: 39-65.
EMPIRICAL DOMAINS
2/16
Technology and Change
Burkhardt, M.E. and Brass, D.J. “Changing Patterns or Patterns of Change: The Effects of a
Change in Technology on Social Network Structure and Power,” Administrative Science Quarterly,
35, 1990: 104-127.
Orlikowski, W.J. “Improvising Organizational Transformation over Time: A Situated Change
Perspective,” Information Systems Research, 7, 1, 1996: 63-92.
Barrett, M. and Walsham, G. “Electronic Trading and Work Transformation in the London
Insurance Market,” Information Systems Research, 10, 1, 1999: 1-22.
263: Comp, Work, Orgs
6
Winter, 2011
Volkoff, O., Strong, D.M. and Elmes, M.B. “Technological Embeddedness and Organizational
Change,”Organization Science, 18, 5, 2007: 832-848
2/23
Technology and the Nature of Work
Kraut, R., Koch, S. and Dumais, S. “Computerization, Productivity, and Quality of Employment,”
Communications of the ACM, 32, 2, 1989: 220-238.
Berg, M. “Of Forms, Containers, and the Electronic Medical Record: Some Tools for a Sociology
of the Formal,” Science, Technology & Human Values, 22, 4, 1997: 403-433.
Nyberg, D, “Computers, Customer Service Operatives and Cyborgs: Intra-actions in Call
Centres.” Organization Studies, 30, 11, 2009: 1181-1199.
Beunza, D. and Stark, D, “Tools of the Trade: The Socio-Technology of Arbitrage in a Wall Street
Trading Room,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 13, 1, 2004: 369-401.
3/2
Technology and Knowing/Learning
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. 1991. “Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Toward
a Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovation,” Organization Science, 2, 1, 1991: 40-57.
Bechky, B.A. “Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of
Understanding on a Production Floor,” Organization Science, 14, 3, 2003: 312–330.
Gusterson, H. “Nuclear futures: anticipatory knowledge, expert judgment, and the lack that
cannot be filled,” Science and Public Policy, 35, 8, 2008: 551-560.
Schultze, U. “A Confessional Account of an Ethnography about Knowledge Work,” MIS
Quarterly, 24, 1,2000: 3-41.
SUMMARY & REFLECTION
3/9
Questions, Implications, Moving Forward
Deetz, S. “Describing Differences in Approaches to Organization Science: Rethinking Burrell and
Morgan and their Legacy,” Organization Science, 7, 2, 1996: 191-207.
Weick, K.E. “Drop your Tools: An Allegory for Organizational Studies,” Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, 1996: 301-313.
Law, J. and Urry, J. “Enacting the Social,” Economy and Society, 33, 3, 2004: 390-410.
Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., Feldman, M. “Making Doubt Generative: Rethinking the Role of
Doubt in the Research Process,” Organization Science, 19, 6, 2008: 907-918.
3/16
NO CLASS - FINAL PAPERS DUE BY MIDNIGHT
263: Comp, Work, Orgs
7
Winter, 2011